Many arguments made to transfer Georgia Trump case from state court.
Multiple Codefendants of Former President Trump Request Georgia Indictment to be Moved to Federal Court
Several codefendants of former President Donald Trump, who are facing charges related to contesting the 2020 general elections in Georgia, have taken a significant step by filing notices of removal. These notices request that the state case be transferred to federal court, where they believe they will have a better chance of having the charges dismissed based on immunities and defenses outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
The notices of removal vary in nature, drawing from different legal precedents and presenting additional defenses. However, it is important to note that only one notice is required to move the entire case from state to federal court.
Related Story
Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to President Trump, has argued in a motion to dismiss the charges that the filing of the notice of removal on August 15, a day after the indictment, automatically places the entire case under federal court jurisdiction. This holds true regardless of whether other codefendants have applicable defenses or not.
Judge Steve Jones has scheduled a hearing on the matter for August 28. However, Mr. Meadows’s lawyers have filed an emergency motion requesting the court to expedite the removal of the case before the noon deadline on August 25, which was set by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for the voluntary surrender of the 19 defendants before they face arrest.
The lawyers argue that federal courts have allowed removal without first holding an evidentiary hearing.
Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, and David Shafer, former Georgia Republican Party Chair, have also filed notices of removal.
‘On Behalf of the President’
The main argument for removal centers around the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law takes precedence over all other laws. This means that federal officers are not bound by state laws and courts.
There is well-established precedent that federal officers are immune to suit in state court, and there is even some precedent that those who act on behalf of federal officials also have similar immunity. Both sides are expected to argue this point.
The federal officer removal statute allows state criminal cases to be transferred to federal court when they involve a federal officer or a person acting “under color of” a federal officer.
In the case of Mr. Meadows, his lawyers argue that he is a federal official and emphasize that he was carrying out duties “on behalf of the President,” citing 34 cases to support their argument.
Lawyers for David Shafer, an alternate elector in the 2020 election, also argue multiple times that he acted “at the direction of the President and other federal officers.”
The detailed 52-page notice outlines multiple defenses, including official immunity, federal preemption, supremacy clause immunity, defenses under the Due Process Clause, and First Amendment defenses.
Georgia Electors
Mr. Shafer is facing eight counts, including violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, impersonating a public officer, forgery, false statements and writings, and criminal attempt to commit filing false documents.
His lawyers argue that all the charges against him stem directly from his service as a Presidential Elector nominee, acting under the authority of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.
They provide a detailed account of his actions after the general elections, highlighting that he followed legal counsel advice, conducted proceedings as dictated by law, and acted at the direction of federal officials, including President Trump.
They assert that Mr. Shafer’s duties as a contingent Presidential Elector are created by the U.S. Constitution and governed by federal law. They argue that he was an officer of the United States and, at a minimum, was acting under officers of the United States.
The attorneys also emphasize that Mr. Shafer worked hand-in-hand with the federal government to carry out his duties as a Presidential Elector, further supporting their claim that he was acting “under color.”
They point out that defendants with weaker connections to federal duties have qualified for removal in the past, citing a case involving an employee of a private aircraft engine manufacturer who inspected manufacturing for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Overall, the codefendants are making a strong case for the removal of the Georgia indictment to federal court, relying on constitutional immunities and defenses to support their argument.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...